Understanding
turbine
financing
with
a
more
familiar
product
as
the
star

If
cars
were
financed
like
turbines
(theoretical
example):

Breeze
2011
is
the
newest
weapon
against
global
warming.
The
cost
of
building
the
Breeze
is
$200,000.
Subsidies,
grants
and
tax
credits
give
the
manufacturer
$120,000
per
car.
The
Breeze
retails
for
$180,000.

Goverment
funds
also
pay
lot
rent
for
the
car
dealership
to
assure
the
dealer
will
stay
in
business.
Dealer
must
have
20%
of
their
inventory
in
Breezes.
They
are
not
allowed
to
replenish
inventory
until
the
Breezes
are
gone,
lest
people
be
tempted
to
go
for
an
environmentally
unfriendly
alternative
due
to
lower
cost
or
desirability.

Breeze
is
all
electric
car.
It
recharges
via
solar
panals
on
the
car
and
a
small
wind
turbine
on
the
owners
lot.
They
cannot
be
charged
from
household
current.
The
use
of
solar
and
wind
should
keep
the
car
battery
bank
charged
at
all
times.

The
vehicle
has
a
3
year
warranty.
After
that,
parts
and
service
are
the
responsibility
of
the
owner.
Cost
could
be
rather
high
compared
to
other
cars.
The
Breeze
cannot
simply
be
parked
if
in
need
of
repair.
It
can
be
sold
but
not
retired.
Otherwise,
it
will
not
serve
as
a
weapon
against
global
warming.
The
owner
is
responsible
for
insuring
the
car.

The
most
outstanding
feature
of
the
Breeze
is
the
fuel
for
driving
it
is
FREE!

How
to
lie
with
statistics:

A
common
theme
amoung
those
advocating
turbines
is
stating
the
total
subsidies
given
to
wind
and
oil/gas.
For
example,
$43
to
$46
billion
for
wind
worldwide
and
$557
billion
for
oil/gas.
Sounds
very
lopsided
and
makes
oil
and
gas
look
like
money
hogs.
Anti-wind
proponents
point
out
that,
in
the
USA,
if
you
look
at
the
per/mw
subsidy
a
very
different
picture
appears:
25cents
per
MW
for
oil/gas
and
$24
per
MW
for
wind.
*

Which
is
correct?
They
both
are.
The
question
that
is
most
important
is
which
number
more
accurately
represents
the
situation.
Cutting
subsidies
to
oil/gas
would
not
change
the
cost
of
electricity
by
much.
However,
the
same
is
not
true
with
wind.
Very
large
increases
in
cost
would
occur
and
it's
likely
customers
would
not
accept
such
and
increase.
So
it
is
best
when
selling
wind
to
use
totals,
best
when
opposing
it
to
use
per
MW.
If
you're
a
customer,
you
need
to
do
much
research
before
accepting
the
numbers.

Daryl
Huff's
"How
to
Lie
with
Statistics"
is
an
excellent
short
book
that
will
help
explain
how
statistics
can
be
used
to
defend
even
opposing
positions.

*These
numbers
can
vary
depending
on
source
and
are
for
illustration
purposes
only.

Wind
turbines
benefit
farms
and
ranchers:

There
already
exist
subsidies
for
ranchers
and
farmers.
Funneling
money
through
a
third
party
that
is
very
expensive
makes
no
sense.
Congress
also
provides
subsidies
and
grants
through
the
1603
program.
So
at
this
point,
money
is
being
paid
to
farmers/ranchers
and
to
wind
developers,
all
on
the
premise
that
this
helps
farmers/ranchers.
It
would
be
far
more
cost
efficient
to
appropriately
subsidize
ranchers
and
farmers
and
eliminate
the
middle
man.
If
it's
important
that
farmers
and
ranchers
not
lose
their
land,
make
that
happen
instead
of
installing
expensive,
noisy
turbines
to
"save
the
ranch".
The
turbines
change
the
entire
nature
of
farms
and
ranches
making
them
power
plants,
not
rural
areas.
It's
questionable
if
wind
turbines
are
actually
saving
or
killing
the
patient,
so
to
speak.
The
farm
remains,
the
rural
feel
does
not.

Wind
turbines
are
needed
to
reduce
our
dependence
on
foreign
oil:

Understand,
this
is
NOT
why
we
have
the
wind
turbines
and
solar
panals.
Nor
is
it
because
oil
and
gas
are
not
renewable.
Natural
gas
may
indeed
be
renewable
in
coal
bed
methane.
Current
tests
are
proposed
by
two
companies
for
Wyoming.
There
are
two
theories
on
the
origin
of
oil--one
that
it
came
form
organic
materials
and
is
not
being
formed
at
present
and
an
other
that
says
it
is
formed
deep
within
the
earth
and
that
this
process
continues
to
this
day.
What
is
really
meant
by
"energy
independence"
and
"reducing
dependence
on
foreign
oil"
is
the
US
must
stop
using
fossil
fuels.
We
must
return
to
windmills,
solar
panals,
bicycles
and
candles.
The
statement
clearly
does
not
mean
reducing
dependence
because
the
US
has
huge
reserves
of
oil
and
we
are
not
allowed
to
use
them.
If
the
goal
were
energy
independence,
that
would
be
the
appropriate
solution--drill
our
own
oil.
When
someone
talks
about
energy
independence,
think
massive
cuts
in
electical
use,
rolling
blackouts
and
brownouts,
reduction
in
the
number
of
automobiles,
etc.
This
is
not
about
keeping
the
lights
on.